Accommodating Culture

"When religious groups compromise their foundational beliefs in order to coexist with the late sensate culture rather than challenging it or standing against it, they in effect consent to their own liquidation" (Harold O.J. Brown, The Sensate Culture, p. 67).

The Burden of Legalism

A "Snowpacolypse" in NYC has taken down the strings that constitute the local eruv - the boundary hung by orthodox Jews to indicate the boundaries in which one can carry household goods, kleenex, babies, water bottles, pencils, etc.  The eruv is an extension of the  home, essentially saying that "this neighborhood is my home."  However, it has to be marked by this special string upheld by telegraph poles.

Not only are orthodox Jews incorrect in asserting that God doesn't want people to carry their babies on Sabbath, they have added onto the law (like Eve) in such a way that they can't even have a map to indicate where the eruv is.  It HAS to be the string.  If the string falls down, the eruv falls as well.

What a sad state.  To take the Living Word of God and reduce it to a series of laws and strings.  Tragic, tragic.  Oh, that they would be liberated by the blood of Christ!

Didactic worship in the Reformed tradition

One of the threats of Reformed worship is that we turn every element
of worship into a "teaching moment." We explain the Lord's Supper, we
explain baptism, confession, assurance. To we threaten to turn the
entire worship service into one long series of sermons punctuated by
music by our constant explaining, exhorting, and reflecting? Can
worship be, to some degree, self-explanatory?

Jesus Calling?

Description of Jesus Calling by Sarah Young, from amazon.com:

After many years of writing in her prayer journal, missionary Sarah Young decided to "listen" to God with pen in hand, writing down whatever she believed He was saying to her. It was awkward at first, but gradually her journaling changed from monologue to dialogue. She knew her writings were not inspired as Scripture is, but they were helping her grow closer to God. Others were blessed as she shared her writings, until people all over the world were using her messages. They are written from Jesus' point of view, thus the title Jesus Calling. It is Sarah's fervent prayer that our Savior may bless you with His presence and His peace in ever deeper measure.

This book has 160 5-star reviews, 16 4-star reviews, and 1 each of 3, 2 and 1-star reviews.  A simple reminder to me, as a Pastor, how important it is to review basic doctrine: inspiration, Christ's divinity, the physical resurrection, etc.  There can be no more words of Jesus until He speaks them Himself at the last day.  Despite the comment that "her writings were not inspired as Scripture is," there is an implicit idea that they are, in fact, inspired in some way.  This confuses the whole concept of inspiration.  You might read the Bible and be "inspired" to go do a painting, but the inspiration of Scripture means that God was superintending the words of Scripture, something that Sarah Young thinks was happening when she wrote in her journal.

Antony Flew responds to Richard Dawkin's critique

Flew: atheist become theist
Dawkins: critic of his hero's theism

Flew spoke at Biola University when he received the "Philip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth"  Dawkins said he was used.  Flew writes:

"Finally, as to the suggestion that I have been used by Biola University: If the way I was welcomed by the students and the members of the faculty whom I met on my short stay in Biola amounted to being used, then I can only express my regret that at my age of eighty-five I cannot reasonably hope for another visit to this institution."

A little common ground with atheists

Maybe Van Til wasn't so great after all . . . Hitchens is interviewed by Sewell, a Unitarian minister.  (On her own blog she complains that Hitchens drinks too much, and became acerbic because of it.)


Maryiln Sewell: The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and [sic] distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion? Christopher Hitchens: I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.  






Atheists love this quote as much as Christians. 

Trouble at Coral Ridge

If you're not aware of the troubles at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, I won't tell you, because I don't want to ruin your day.

But let's look at what has gone wrong:

Rev. Tullian Tchividian (did I spell that right?) takes to Christianity Today to defend himself.  I can't help but notice Tullian's Christ-like willingness to forgive.  But no sense of any willingness to ask for forgiveness.

One group has formed a faction, and taken that faction on to plant a new church.  Do people not realize that factions and divisions are reckoned by the Bible in the same category as orgies and witchcraft?
Galatians 5:19-21  Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality,  20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions,  21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.  


When we hear that a group of the church - including the late Dr. Kennedy's daughter - formed a breakaway group, we ought to hear that as if they had protested Tullian's new call by having a drunken orgy.  Outrageous!  Scripture says, "People like you will not go to heaven - you will not inherit the kingdom of God."

I am far from impressed with Rev. Tchividian.  He is slick, he courts the press, and he seems to have packages the "unpackaged" motif.  He's accidentally cool, and should be far more willing to, say, wear a robe because the people want him to wear a robe.  Submit in love, Tullian!  And stop broadcasting your humility all over Christianity Today, the mag grandpa Billy started.

But that still doesn't excuse people for divining Coral Ridge's future by slaughtering a sheep and reading its liver strife, rivalries, dissensions, and divisions.  I mean, we are talking about two separate congregations with the exact same doctrine.  If they can split over admitted non-essentials, what hope is there?

This could have been handled so many ways but this.

Bring them home. All of them.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local-beat/Little-Soldier-Girl-Didnt-Want-to-Let-Go-63629627.html?yhp=1

My response to 9 marks and mentally retarded adults

The 9 marks blog has some insane comment policy, so this will probably never show up.

Response to this.

We have this same issue at our church with an 18 year old.  Here's how we figure it:

No Jewish family ever had a baby whom they thought was a Philistine.  Jewish families had Jewish kids.  Sometimes those kids grew up to be Baal worshippers, and proved that they were not faithful Jews after all.  But we don't admit only the elect to the visible church, because we don't know who's elect.  We do our best at making a decision.

If it is impossible to know, as in this man's case, exhort the family to raise him and train him in the fear and admonition of the Lord.  Remind them that the Word of God does not come back void, even in the case of the disabled, and that Jesus loves the little children (e.g. those who don't have the ability to speak like adults).  Then admit him to full membership, sing with him, read him the Scriptures, and if he should ever need it, bring him under church discipline.

You wrote, "We're not saying he is not a Christian; we're simply saying it is nearly impossible for us (the church) to discern."

That's actually true for everyone.  Seemingly faithful brothers have left their wives and the faith.  Why did we let them be pastors and elders and Sunday school teachers?  Because it is ALWAYS impossible to discern with CERTAINTY.  We're ALWAYS just doing our best.  Sometimes that's easy, and sometimes that's hard.  But it's better to, with the best of intentions, allow an unbeliever to the discipline and sacraments of the church then to keep a true Christian away from the font and the table forever.  It would be better to go swimming with a millstone around your neck.

Gore Vidal on American Education

Link

Does anyone care what Americans think? They're the worst-educated people in the First World. They don't have any thoughts, they have emotional responses, which good advertisers know how to provoke.

How critical it is to raise a generation of people who know how to think, not just how to feel.

False teachers?

I've been going back and forth a bit with my friend Brenden on his blog.

At issue is "what is a false teacher?" Is a false teacher easy to recognize? How should the term be used?

Thus far, here's me, then him, then me.

1. J.Kru

   Hey Brenden – just found your blog. And I thought it was just a Facebook thing.

   I recognized the phrase “false teacher” – it shows up in the second Helvetic confession ch. 18.

   “For, if they be false teachers, they are not to be tolerated at all.”

   And of course 2 Peter 2:1 says, “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”

   It seems that your description of “false teachers” is a little softer than either the 2Helvitic or the Bible. Are you using “False Teachers” in a different sense?

   
   
2. on September 14, 2009 at 11:37 am | Reply Brenden

   Jarid – Yeah, that’s a good question. I think I may have been using a different sense. My intention was more to bring out the ‘hypothetical’ false teacher and identify him via certain strains of ‘false teaching’ more specifically. False teaching rarely is conspicuously apparent, but rather veils itself through sophisticated reasoning and wordplay. Mine was an attempt to unveil the spirit of the age by identifying some of its underlying motivations.

   Your criticism is quite well-founded. However, my question then would be: if he’s dong false teaching, when does he become a ‘false teacher’? Thanks for the comment. We should catch up sometime soon.

   
   
3. on September 14, 2009 at 12:50 pm | Reply J.Kru

   Well, there’s a sense in which the identification of false teachers is the work of the church, not the individual. It’s not a complete sense, i.e. we should be able to discern truth from error, but it’s there.

   I would say that someone is a false teacher as soon as they start teaching what it certainly false.

   It’s the evaluation of the falsehood that is the trouble.

   I’m not sure that false teaching is quite so veiled. For example, is Baptist sacrementology false teaching? I believe it is, in fact, in error, but it’s not “false teaching.” Every theological is a matter of error or not-error, but that doesn’t mean that either all Baptists or all Presbyterians are false teachers.

   False teaching is a statement that salvation is not by faith but by circumcision. Arianism, Docetism, Sabellianism, or Pelagianism are all false teachings. JW’s and Mormons are false teachers.

   It seems from Scripture and the Reformed confessions that a “false teacher” is someone outside of salvation, an damnable heretic who is, apart from heartfelt repentance, going to go to hell, and all who follow him shall go with him.

   They often attempt to be sophisticated in the description, but the error is plainly seen.

   What caught my attention was the word “emphasis,” which certainly apply to #s 1-4, and maybe 5. I remembered John Frame’s essay “evaluating theological writings.” He mentions 3 unsound criteria for theological evaluation, the first one being “emphasis.” He writes, “In this kind of criticism, one theologian attacks another for having an improper ‘emphasis.’ But there is no such thing as a single normative emphasis. An emphasis becomes a problem only when it leads to other sorts of problems.” (John Frame, _The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God_, P&R Publishing, 1987), p. 370. He refers in this section to chapter 6, where he discusses problems of evaluating “emphasis” – a. Emphasis is a matter of degree. Exactly how much has to be done before a proper ‘emphasis’ has been achieved? b. Scripture has a “central message,” but valuable theological work can be done in areas that are distantly related to this central message. For example, the veiling of women in 1 Cor 11 is not illegitimate because it is pays little attention the Scripture’s central message. c. Theology cannot have precisely the same emphasis as Scripture, because it does more than simply repeat Scripture from Gen. to Rev. Theology exists to apply Scripture.

   Finally, he suggests that a problem of “emphasis” is better understood as either a problem of truth, clarity or cogency.” (182-183).

   There are a couple of points in Frame (just the above part) I’m not sure I agree with, but his final point is the best – instead of looking for the man’s emphasis, let’s look to see if he’s wrong, unclear, or unconvincing.

Machen on the Meaning of Freedom, Gal. 1:3-7

The Christian does indeed live still in this world.  It is a travesty on this Pauline doctrine when it is held to mean that when he escapes, inwardly, from the present evil world by the redeeming work of Christ the Christian can calmly leave the world to its fate.  On the conrary, Christian men, even after they have been redeemed, are left in this world, and in this world they have an important duty to perform.

In the first place, they do not stand alone, but are united in the great brotherhood of the Christian Church.  Into that brotherhood it is their duty to invite other men by the preaching of the gospel; and they should pray that that preaching, through the supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit in the new birth, may be efficacious, and that the great brotherhood may expand yet more and more.

In the second place, Christians should by no means adopt a negative attitude toward art, government, science, literature, and the other achievements of mankind, but should consecrate these things to the service of God.  The separateness of the Christian from the world is not to be manifested, as so many seem to think that it should be manifested, by the presentation to God of only an impoverished man; but it is to be manifested by the presentation to God of all man's God-given powers developed to the full.  That is the higher Christain humanism, a humanism based not upon human pride but upon the solid foundation of the grace of God. 

But these considerations do not make any less radical the step of which Paul speaks.  It remains true that the Christian has escaped from this present age - from this present world with all its sin and all its pride.  The Christian continues to live in the world, but he lives in it as its master and not as its slave.  He can move the world because at last he has a place to stand.

J. Gresham Machen, Machen's Notes on Galatians, ed. John H. Skilton (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1972), 32-33.

The Real Cost of Television

A great little entry about TV from the Bayly Bros.


"No one ever looked at the PBS anchor and said, "I've got to get a blazer like that!"

Right in line with my current email tagline:

The U.S. has now proved beyond any doubt that it is not possible to maintain civilization in a country with commercial television. - Clyde N. Wilson

When Paul writes,
2 Corinthians 10:5 "We . . . take every thought captive to obey Christ,"

He doesn't mean in his own personal life, he means as he argues and debates. But it's tough to recognize the flesh when all you do is fill your head with manure.

Exodus from the Government Education Facility

http://afterthebasket.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/exodus/

The Year of Our Lord for Queer Folk

It just strikes me as funny that as our President declares that it's Gay-Lesbian-Trangendered-Bisexual Pride month,he can't help but include reference to Jesus, as he says,

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

I'm sorry, the year of whose Lord? This one?

Colossians 1:9-10 And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.